Talk:The Dogs of War
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Rearranged[edit]
I rearranged the entry, placing the source of the term's modern usage—Shakespeare's Julius Caesar quote—at the beginning, rather than where it was before ("Other Uses"), as the term. Surely no one debates that the origin of the term ought to be at the beginning of the entry, rather than near the end.
I also moved the Forsyth novel, which also was in "Other Uses", to the early part of the entry, as the success of the novel re-popularized the term, and was certainly more significant than its use in some obscure songs.
—TallulahBelle (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Origin[edit]
The military order Havoc! was a signal given to the English military forces in the Middle Ages to direct the soldiery (in Shakespeare's parlance 'the dogs of war') to pillage and chaos.
Origin
The Black Book of the Admiralty of 1385 is a collection of laws, in French and Latin, relating to the English Navy. In the 'Ordinances of War of Richard II' in that book we find:
"Item, qe nul soit si hardy de crier havok sur peine davoir la test coupe."
I text in English that comes nearer to defining the term is Grose's 'History of the English Army', circa 1525:
"Likewise be all manner of beasts, when they be brought into the field and cried havoke, then every man to take his part."
Shakespeare was well aware of the use of the meaning of havoc and he used 'cry havoc' in several of his plays. The 'cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war' form of the phrase is from his Julius Caesar, 1601. After Caesar's murder Anthony regrets the course he has taken and predicts that war is sure to follow.
ANTONY: Blood and destruction shall be so in use And dreadful objects so familiar That mothers shall but smile when they behold Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war; All pity choked with custom of fell deeds: And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge, With Ate by his side come hot from hell, Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war; That this foul deed shall smell above the earth With carrion men, groaning for burial.
The term also appears in The Life and Death of King John - "Cry 'havoc!' kings; back to the stained field..." and in Coriolanus - "Do not cry havoc, where you should but hunt with modest warrant."
The term is the predessor of 'play havoc' (with). This is now more common than 'cry havoc' but has lost the force of the earlier phrase - just meaning 'cause disorder and confusion'.
FROM phrases.org.uk
Genghis khan[edit]
The phrase the dogs of war comes from a line in William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar: "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!" Several works have been named in its honor:
How is the fact that genghis khan named his favorite generals "dogs of war" something in the honor of shakespeares play ????? Genghis khan lived in the 12th century, way before shakespeare was born. Just remove it from the list or say that this is a list of people, groups etc where the phrase "dogs of war" is used. I'm sorry if i did something wrong and should not have done it this way.I dont know how this all works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.163.11.239 (talk • contribs) .
- I corrected the Shakespeare reference. Firstly, there are no credible references around to the use of dogs in actual warfare in Shakespeare's Britain, or any time before that either. Hunting dogs, guard dogs, sniffer dogs in civil or military support - yes; frontline combat dogs - no. Second, nowhere in Shakespeare, let alone Julius Caesar, are "War Dogs" referred to... odd, seeing that later in the play the prediction of war comes to pass, and the word "havoc" is in contrast repeated. Third, Shakespeare's audience would have included many artisans, especially in the naval & maritime field... for them a "dog" was an engineering term for a mechanical restraint. e.g. "dog the hatches". See Dog (engineering). You release, or let slip in poetic terms, the dog and whatever it is holding back is free to move So the dogs of war were the restraints on war, not war or the soldiers : that interpretation is an artefact of folks with too narrow an education and too prone to ascribe the first most literal meaning available, and perpetuated by Frederick Forsyth. Rcbutcher (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Have to dispute this, based on the Oxford English Dictionary and Jonathan Bate, sources I have added to the article. Is there a source of equal validity which supports the mechanical restraint theory? if not, it's original research, which isn't allowed. I can't cite from Wikipedia itself, as it's not allowed either, but Dogs in warfare has "The Romans employ one fighting dog company per legion". This is in Plutarch, Shakespeare's immediate source. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think what's happened is that many "authors" have re-interpreted history to fit what they think "dogs of war" meant. The "evidence" in Dogs in warfare is pretty flimsy, I studied it before I made my original change. Certainly in Shakespeare's time there was no such thing, and as far as I know never had been in Britain. In his day, to his audience, familiar with shipbuilding and marine life, "let slip the dog" would mean "release the restraining device". A "dog" was a common naval term. This is not original research, the people who invent canine wardogs in 1600 in England are the ones doing original research - they are insisting on forcing the wrong usage of "dog" onto a simple statement. Remember, Shakespeare was really writing about modern life in Britain - the exotic locations and past dates were merely artistic (and sometimes politically necessary) devices... his language was that of London in the early 1600s and must be interpredted as such. There were no such things as "war dogs" or "dogs of war" then and there. Secondly, he does not use the term "war dogs". Why not ? Why does he instead use the term "dogs of war" ? Because he means what he says - dog as restraining device was not used as "xyz dog" and in such usage would not mean what he intended... if he meant "war dog" he would have said so, it fits stylistically. Rcbutcher (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your point is particularly valid in Julius Caesar, with its public clocks striking the hours in first century-BC Rome. However, from the WP point of view the counter-intuitive answer in WP:V is that we write what we can prove from reliable sources (two, in this case) and not what we think is true. However, lack of dogs of war in 16C needn't be a sticking point, to misuse Macbeth: Shakespeare was well-versed in Plutarch's Lives and, indeed, sourced "JC" from there, and Plutarch wrote about "dogs of war". Shakespeare's personal and contemporary knowledge of the topic isn't necessary.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Following up your point about WS's language, also very valid, I made a very hasty review of "dogs" in the canon. Invective apart ("whoreson dog") I could only find references (nearly a hundred) where the four-legged variety was necessary to satisfy the context; there was even one in the cast of Two Gentlemen. No references to mechanical dogs at all, but to be fair, none of the other ones I found was a war dog either. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- dog : "4. a mechanical device for gripping or holding, esp one of the axial slots by which gear wheels or shafts are engaged to transmit torque". Leaving aside the noun, let's look at the verb "slip" : "To part from an anchor by releasing the shackles from the anchor chain" : meanings given by the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Hence we can read the term as "release the shackles" and substitute war for anchor chain... metaphors his audiencewould relate to. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- We may read it so, and so may well have WS's audience, but this isn't specifically stated in any source I've yet found (and I've spent some time looking for one—it would by an interesting counterpoint to include in the article). As it stands, pending something turning up, it's a theory: original research.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Now checked all "dog" mentions in Shakespeare—getting on for two hundred in all—with grateful thanks to http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/ for the "literary technology" that made this easy. I was wrong about there being no mechanical dogs: there is a reference in Comedy of Errors to a dog with its tail docked so that it could run in a caged wheel to turn a spit! --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- We may read it so, and so may well have WS's audience, but this isn't specifically stated in any source I've yet found (and I've spent some time looking for one—it would by an interesting counterpoint to include in the article). As it stands, pending something turning up, it's a theory: original research.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- dog : "4. a mechanical device for gripping or holding, esp one of the axial slots by which gear wheels or shafts are engaged to transmit torque". Leaving aside the noun, let's look at the verb "slip" : "To part from an anchor by releasing the shackles from the anchor chain" : meanings given by the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Hence we can read the term as "release the shackles" and substitute war for anchor chain... metaphors his audiencewould relate to. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Following up your point about WS's language, also very valid, I made a very hasty review of "dogs" in the canon. Invective apart ("whoreson dog") I could only find references (nearly a hundred) where the four-legged variety was necessary to satisfy the context; there was even one in the cast of Two Gentlemen. No references to mechanical dogs at all, but to be fair, none of the other ones I found was a war dog either. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your point is particularly valid in Julius Caesar, with its public clocks striking the hours in first century-BC Rome. However, from the WP point of view the counter-intuitive answer in WP:V is that we write what we can prove from reliable sources (two, in this case) and not what we think is true. However, lack of dogs of war in 16C needn't be a sticking point, to misuse Macbeth: Shakespeare was well-versed in Plutarch's Lives and, indeed, sourced "JC" from there, and Plutarch wrote about "dogs of war". Shakespeare's personal and contemporary knowledge of the topic isn't necessary.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think what's happened is that many "authors" have re-interpreted history to fit what they think "dogs of war" meant. The "evidence" in Dogs in warfare is pretty flimsy, I studied it before I made my original change. Certainly in Shakespeare's time there was no such thing, and as far as I know never had been in Britain. In his day, to his audience, familiar with shipbuilding and marine life, "let slip the dog" would mean "release the restraining device". A "dog" was a common naval term. This is not original research, the people who invent canine wardogs in 1600 in England are the ones doing original research - they are insisting on forcing the wrong usage of "dog" onto a simple statement. Remember, Shakespeare was really writing about modern life in Britain - the exotic locations and past dates were merely artistic (and sometimes politically necessary) devices... his language was that of London in the early 1600s and must be interpredted as such. There were no such things as "war dogs" or "dogs of war" then and there. Secondly, he does not use the term "war dogs". Why not ? Why does he instead use the term "dogs of war" ? Because he means what he says - dog as restraining device was not used as "xyz dog" and in such usage would not mean what he intended... if he meant "war dog" he would have said so, it fits stylistically. Rcbutcher (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't find the old quote, but I remember it from when I was young, "The dogs of war grow fat..." The phrase refers to the real dogs of war that come out and eat the bodies of the fallen. This really happens. There are references to it in accounts from the Liberian civil war, etc. "The first thing I noticed in Monrovia is the dogs are all well fed." 69.108.0.135 (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The article reads like a disambiguation page, and someone from WikiProject Disambiguation has labelled it as such, above. However hybrid disambiguation pages, with a main subject described at the top, aren't strictly allowed. Should the factual part have its own article with just the link here, as suggested in this policy, or may we carry on regarding it as a short article with a big "other uses" section? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- To answer my own question I have reorganised the headers to make the piece look more like an article and less like a dab page: it seemed the easier option. In the process a reference was found for a frisbee team, but I'm not sure if this is notable enough to keep: it certainly fails the dab page requirements as it would have to have its own article or mention somewhere else with which to link. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, User:JHunterJ, for taking the "harder option" here!--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress[edit]
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Dogs of War! (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)